Psychosocial Adjustment of Men During the First Year of Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The psychosocial dimension of prostate cancer has received increased attention over the past 2 decades. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to investigate the men's psychosocial adjustment over the course of the first year of prostate cancer and to examine the sense of coherence, couple cohesion and adaptability, sexual and urinary symptoms, and mood disturbance as predictors of their adjustment. METHODS: There were 81, 69, and 61 men visited at home prior to treatment (T1), 3 months later (T2), and 1 year after the first visit (T3), respectively. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were used to examine adjustment over time. Multiple regressions determined whether the predictors were associated with the adjustment domains. RESULTS: Sexual relationship deteriorated and social environment improved between T1 and T2. Between T1 and T3, sexual, domestic, and family relationships deteriorated, whereas social environment improved. Mood disturbance, sense of coherence, couple cohesion, and couple adaptability were predictors of psychological, vocational, and domestic domains at T1. At T2, mood disturbance and sexual functioning were predictors of healthcare, vocational, social, psychological, and family domains. At T3, couple cohesion and adaptability and urinary functioning were predictors to vocational, domestic, social, and psychological adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of prostate cancer, men showed deterioration in sexual, close-family, and extended-family relationship domains. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Sexuality is an important topic, and spousal communication should be encouraged throughout the first year following diagnosis. Preparedness for the changes associated with prostate cancer along with continuing support to couples, rather than to patients only, might be the strongest approach to enhancing men's adjustment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".